College Students' Moral Reasoning About Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sport

Purpose:

Daily, allegations surface and athletes are found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs to improve competition. However, Research is unclear as to whether the general public actually believes that performance enhancing drug is a moral issue. The purpose of this study was to examine college students' cognitive moral reasoning about competition and doping in sport.

Methods: Participants were 204 general college students (104 males; 118 females). Volunteers signed informed consent and were enrolled in a variety of general education courses. Students were evaluated using the HBVCI, a 21 question valid and reliable instrument for measuring moral reasoning in competition (Cronbach Alpha = .80; possible score range 10-50). The HBVCI measures cognitive moral reasoning about commonly occurring issues in competition and uses a 5 point Likert type scale. Participants were also evaluated using the EAMCI, a 5 scenario/question instrument for measuring cognitive moral reasoning relative to doping in sport (possible score range 5-15). Participants were asked to read a scenario and then decide whether to “take the drug”, “can't decide”, or “not take the drug”, and then rank a series of choices that influenced their decision.

Analysis/Results:

ANOVA procedures, regression, and factor analysis were run. A preliminary exploratory factor analysis was interpreted using maximum likelihood factor analysis with varimax rotation and total explained variance with eigenvalues over 1.0, and scree plot. The rotation solution yielded two interpretable factors: 1) loyalty versus truthfulness accounted for 36.7% and 2) success in competition versus truthfulness accounted for 22.07 % of the total variance (Cronbach = .55; 3rd pilot). A significant difference was found by gender on the EAMCI scores F(1, 202) = 32.88, p= .001; females scored 12.58 ± F2.02 while males scored 10.73 ± 2.57; and the HBVCI F(1,218) = 5.647, p=.05; females scored 30.92 ± 7.33 while males scored 28.52 ± 6.36. Moreover, gender significantly predicted EAMCI scores F(1, 202) = 32.88, p=.01, R = .374, R² = .14, beta weight = 1.848.

Conclusions:

It appears that the general public has difficulty in reasoning about the moral implications of performance enhancing drug use. If individuals truly believed doping was unacceptable, the EAMCI scores should have been 15. Both males and females score in a mid-range signifying their skills and tools are limited in making reasoned decisions about right actions in competition. Females score higher than males, but not a level to insure principled thinking about doping in sport.